My Reflections on Rush Limbaugh

I first listened to Rush Limbaugh in 1992 or 1993 I would say.  There was some hype and excitement about a new rising star and personality, a controversial figure, on the radio, and I intentionally sought him out to see what all the fuss was about, to see what I thought about him.  I had a general understanding of Democrats and Republicans at that time; Democrats were for the poor and Republicans were for the rich.  Democrats represented the interests of the less fortunate and Republicans represented the interests of the more fortunate; that was the basic way that I saw things. 

Rush Limbaugh was a fun and interesting character on the radio; he was friendly, funny, entertaining, and very informative; he provided a lot of information that for some reason I didn’t get anywhere else.  Also he presented things in a new way to me, gave me new interpretations of how to view things, provided insights that nobody directed me to before.  This led me to see Republicans in a new light; Republicans were the high functioning people and that is why they were richer, Democrats were the low functioning people and that was why they were poorer.  Republicans want people to succeed, a high functioning orientation, and Democrats want people to be taken care of by the state or by government welfare, a low functioning orientation.  So it wasn’t as simple as Democrats are the party of the poor, Republicans are the party of the rich; instead it was Democrats are the party of the low functioning poor and Republicans are the party of the high functioning rich.  Yes Democrats care more and protect the less fortunate better but they also promote a kind of low functioning mindset that leads people to be less fortunate in the first place.  That there was a value system connected to conservatism that favored the rich and encouraged people to become rich both.

Rush Limbaugh was indeed the first and the only person to point this out to me and illustrate this to me, the value system behind conservatism and the hopeful message behind conservatism.  I feel like nobody else ever communicated the moral philosophy of conservatism to me before, before Rush did so.  I became a big fan of Rush Limbaugh after this, after him showing this to me, and thought of myself as a Dittohead and a conservative at this point, say 1 to 2 years into listening to the Rush Limbaugh show regularly.  I wanted to be a winner and to identity myself with the winner mindset and the winner mentality; to be a high-functioning conservative rather than a low-functioning liberal.

Rush Limbaugh regularly said critical things about feminists and pointed to societal decay of one sort or another on a regular basis, about falling moral standards.  Of most importance to me he made a reference to exploding out-of-wedlock births, that out-of-wedlock births had increased from 5% to 30%.  This was astounding to me, I wondered, could it possibly be true?  I then sought out statistics on out-of-wedlock births from other sources to see if this was actually true and to learn more about the subject and think more about the subject; this leading me to other conservative organizations and thinking such as The Heritage Foundation.  This then led to a period of serious research and thinking on my part regarding family breakdown, deteriorating relationships between men and women, how this harms children, how this family breakdown seems to perpetuate itself from one generation to the next generation, how every generation seems to be worse off than their parents’ generation in terms of family formation competence, and how severe family dysfunction leads to the high poverty, high crime, high incarceration, high drug abuse of the black ghetto; me expecting the problems of the black ghetto to expand to white America if family dysfunction continued to expand and expand and get worse like it had been doing since the 1960s.

I noticed, feminists always seemed to be in favor of different elements of family breakdown and different forms of neglecting children.  Feminists were in favor of divorce, feminists were in favor of putting children into daycare, feminists were always eager to attack men presumably making relationships between men and women more difficult.  Feminists hated the 1950s but the 1950s was when out-of-wedlock births were at 5%, putting children into daycare was basically unheard of, and in general family life was much better.  The 1950s represented patriarchy according to the feminists, family life was much better in the 1950s, therefore patriarchy and the man as breadwinner 1950s model of family life was better and good.  Therefore I identified myself as being pro-patriarchy.

After I went on the tangent of pursuing the issue of family breakdown with my own extended research and thinking on the matter I then saw myself as being primarily anti-feminist and pro-patriarchy; not really conservative, I didn’t really care about the conservative identity anymore.  I was interested in fighting against family breakdown first and foremost and mainstream conservative Republicanism was only tangentially opposed to family breakdown it seemed to me.  Rush Limbaugh was far too feminist for my taste after I had converted to seeing myself as pro-patriarchy.

I still liked Rush, of course, he was a likable guy, and he was the one who opened my eyes to a new way of looking at politics, who helped me understand the conservative philosophy better, who had a kind of idealism and hope about America.  He was still funny and entertaining and informative even though I felt like I didn’t agree with him as much as I did originally.  He was mainstream, mainstream conservative, and I was radical pro-patriarchy anti-feminist because I saw reversing family breakdown as the number one priority.  He didn’t take the threat of feminism and family breakdown seriously enough in my opinion and he wasn’t willing to oppose feminism at a fundamental level.

Over time I mainly saw Rush Limbaugh as a good source of political analysis and a good reference point for what mainstream conservatives or Republicans were thinking.  I would listen to him for 2 or 3 months and then take a year off once I started to get tired of him and then I would get curious about what he was saying again and listen to him for a couple of months before my next year break, etc.

After Donald Trump got elected President I tended to listen to Rush Limbaugh more and I started to identify more with the Republican Party and conservatism because I got the sense that the Republicans were starting to get more radical and more serious regarding cultural issues and things connected to family breakdown; that there was a real battle against “wokeness” going on.

However about 6 months ago things started to take a dark turn on the Rush Limbaugh show; Rush Limbaugh promoting conspiracy theories about Democrats purposely destroying the economy with their coronavirus restrictions to make Donald Trump look bad or that the cure to coronavirus was being hidden to extend the crisis to hurt Trump, that hydroxychloroquine was a cure for coronavirus.  Also accusations against Democrats that if Biden won the election it would probably be due to voter fraud were being made before the election took place.  And then of course the election actually took place and Biden actually did win and Rush Limbaugh was then supportive of Donald Trump’s claims that the election was stolen from him.

After the election of Joe Biden as President Rush Limbaugh put forth a lot of effort trying to discredit the Never-Trumpers and the think tank intellectual conservatives who were fond of “losing with honor” as Rush put it.

And then February 2, 2021 was Rush Limbaugh’s last show; the great Rush Limbaugh dying on February 17, 2021 at 70 years old from lung cancer.


Related article:
Rush Limbaugh advocating for Men’s Rights and Traditional Masculinity

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Personal History and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to My Reflections on Rush Limbaugh

  1. Every once in a while, he had something interesting going on. I couldnt stand to listen most time. It generally just made me mad and I would change it.
    He was correct about a few things, (family breakdown, some social stuff, etc).
    I got boring at times. Kind of puffed himself up.
    I was kind of mad that he didnt have a “school” of sorts to foster the next generation of conservative voices. (One of my reblogs got me blocked on a supposed libertarian’s blog site).
    I dont celebrate his death but I look forward to someone that might be able to reach out to someone outside of the boomer listener base.
    I honestly dont think anyone is trying. (Shapiro could be great if he didnt sound like a defenseless wimp at times).

  2. Pingback: The Clay and Buck Show | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s